notyetagm: <Red October: maybe the missed opportunity for Bc2 was playing on Anand's mind, that can happen even to the very best, sometimes knowing you missed a stronger move can affect you in OTB play>

amadeus: Statistical curiosity concerning the 0.75 advantage given by Rybka -- I did a quick survey on the Karpov-Kasparov matches, in order to verify how unusual this event is.

Karpov - Kasparov: 144 match games, 104 draws. The final evaluation was beyond 0.75 in only 5 of the 104 draws. (Rybka, 16+plies)

2 dead draws from Sevilla (1987), two games from the last quarter of the first match (probably wina by Kasparov), and the final game from 1990 -- winning position (+2,14/17) for Kasparov, but he only needed a draw to take the money and the crown, so...

VaselineTopLove: This is a good game. Spectators and Anand himself should be happy about the result and not complain, considering that he (Anand) at least chose to take risks and start with 1.d4 in a WC match. Since Anand has little experience with 1.d4, and since every game here counts, it's natural for him to play slowly and a little more cautiously than usual and a draw seems a fair outcome.

Joshka: Just a little update with "Foidos". They DID give me a refund for the 4 game package I purchased. So they are honorable in their business practice. Thanks Foidos, sorry I could not utilize your new service for this match!

acirce: <In Game 2 you had better position but went for a draw because of time trouble. Was that a new experience, playing under time pressure?

Not really, I was in time pressure in Game 3 as well but I have been in time pressure quite often recently. Often still far less than others, but for me often enough.
I’ll put it this way. Game 2 I think I have spoiled it anyway. His knight has already come to d4, my bishops are sort of plodding in the side. I don’t feel I’m really better anymore. Maybe if I had an hour I could give it a shot but under the circumstances I decided to take his draw offer. Also it is funny, I needed two minutes to decide whether I was still better and then I had only two minutes left so it was a good decision.>

Anand vs Kramnik, 2008 is the <second game of the 2008 title match>. Quantitative mapping of this game between these players is below. Figures in brackets immediately after each move are the corrected engine evaluations generated on the return slide. The reverse slide smoothed out many, but not all fluctuation in the engine’s evaluations. The complexity of some variations was very likely too great to enable a fuller reconciliation from the forward slide. <General methods used are described in the bio.> The evaluation values in the opening come at the end of a full forward slide to the last move of the game and a full return slide back to the starting position. Engine preferences, with evaluations, are included where they differ from players preferences.

<Summary>

After the cautious preliminaries in game 1, this was a colossal struggle. The game was extremely complex and will repay deep study. Black had a small advantage in a complex Sämisch Nimzo-Indian, but White equalized by move 8. White took advantage of the dubious <21…Ndf6> before dissipating that advantage with <31.Bc2>. A couple of inaccuracies at moves 31 and 32 by Black could have cost the game in a long and complex ending, but due to time trouble, the soon to be World Champion (and one time Blitz and Rapid Play Champion of the world) was unable to penetrate the thicket of possibilities in time and accepted a draw when he was in a position of strong and potentially winning advantage.

Although there were some inaccuracies, there were no blunders or bad moves as such, as defined in the methods used. However, a combination of a couple of the aforementioned dubious moves 31 and 32 could have lead to a lost game for Black, and accordingly they have together been treated as one bad move, especially as sliding analysis revealed continually increasing advantage that could have extended the combined error of these two moves into an evaluation shift exceeding the nominal 0.96 that has been deemed a bad move for the purposes of weighting the game.

This game demonstrates there are occasions when even World Champions are out of their depth.

This marks the end of theory in respect of this opening as shown in the chessgames.com database. The only other game in the database to reach this point was Portisch vs G Kluger, 1962 which continued with <13…Qc7>, with White winning in 54 moves.

<Engine preference>: <16.Qd3> (=0.00), a line given as a draw by repetition. Thankfully, White chose the fighting option.

<16…Ng4> (=-0.02)

<17. Bb4> (=-0.02) <17…Qe3+> (=0.19)

<Engine preference>: <17…Qb6> (=-0.02)

<18. Qe2> ( 0.28)

First preference of both engine and Anand. The engine’s evaluation of this move did not stabilize following forward and reverse slides and re-slides, a prima facie indication of a very complex variation. Most evaluations tend to settle down on the reverse slide. When it doesn’t, it’s indicative of more significant moves within the engine’s horizon than is usual.

Under weighting methods A and B, the evaluation shift of 0.79 is very close to the project definition of a <bad move>. However, it meets the definition of a <dubious move> under method B. <Weight = 0.5, cumulative weight = 0.5>

Black’s last two moves were inaccurate and resulted in a combined evaluation shift against his position of 0.96 that could have, on balance, lead to a lost position with best play on both sides. <Accordingly these two moves are deemed to constitute a bad move, and add a weighting of 1.> <Cumulative weighting = 2.0).

Draw agreed.

This abandons a position of moderate advantage evaluated at 1.13 by White, and accordingly is a <bad move>. <Weighting =1, cumulative weighting = 3.0)

<Note> The fluctuations generated in the relatively low (16 minimum) ply forward slide were smoothed out in the equivalent return slide. The corrected evaluations extracted from the return slide are used in this analysis, as they are considered more reliable than the raw evaluations generated on the initial forward slide. All moves have been evaluated on forward and return slide for completeness.

<Evaluation range>:

Between <=/ 0.45> applying to <7. cxd5> - representing a small advantage for Black - and < 1.13> in respect of the move <32…Rd4> representing a significant/moderate advantage for White.

<The largest evaluation shifts>:

- for White was 0.71 between <30…Nf4> ( 0.88) and <31.Bc2> (=0.16).

- for Black

was 0.79 between <21. Kg3> (=0.10) and <21…Ndf6> ( 0.89)

<Computer statistics>:

• 93.8% of the ply in this game (50/64) coincided with engine preferences 1, 2 or 3

• 87.5% of the ply in the game (56/64) coincided with engine preferences 1 or 2

• 65.6% of the ply in the game (42/64) coincided with the engine’s first preference

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.